Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 18, 2010, 6:22 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
You've hit the nail on the head with your comment, which signals to a great deal of visual literacy as well
Sure he has...

I did read that it was a 100 percent crop. Is that supposed to actually mean something?

Here's a 100 percent crop:



How about a 200 percent crop?



But far more importantly, I said nothing about HDR being useless or fraudulent. Perhaps you could re-read my post and ACTUALLY ANSWER IT?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2010, 4:15 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Sure he has...

I did read that it was a 100 percent crop. Is that supposed to actually mean something?

Here's a 100 percent crop:

How about a 200 percent crop?

But far more importantly, I said nothing about HDR being useless or fraudulent. Perhaps you could re-read my post and ACTUALLY ANSWER IT?
Dave

Haha, well done Dave! However, visual literacy is more related with the faculty of interpreting the visuals than simply being acquainted with the terms about them.
Btw, I hope you haven't envied my humble compliment to a fellow mate of ours who kindly allowed a feedback displaying their comprehension both of the the text and the related images in my post.
And below is your feedback displaying your perception of the whole text I wrote in my post and the images I attached to it:

''Hmm? Other than pointing out that I missed the fact that this thread is two years old (my bad) what's your point?
And a nice shot that you posted. So?''

Well, I had to write a further explanation starting with 'So,...'

''So, Chato, what you see there under the strong summer sun is marble, which derives from the verb marmairein (to sparkle, to shine). I’m not sure if you realised that the second picture in my post is a 100% crop from the whole picture… Anyway, there you can observe the subtle shading even on the surface directly exposed to sunlight preserving the amount of observable detail gradually going into the deep shadows even in the shadows of tiny plants and the column itself as if you’re really there. At the same time, coming back to the original picture you can stil see the bright sky not even a bit molten or blown. Having been to many ancient sites I guarantee you that such a sight, without sunglasses, dazzles your eyes (capable of handling twice more dynamic range than the dslr in a single shot)
Now at this point also please refer to the lines in my previous post regarding the role of shading in a three dimensional representation.
Btw, I have a catalogue of butterfly and duck shots which required no more than a single shot. So, I could provide ‘nicer’ photos for your liking, but I intended to keep to the subject.
I‘m afraid you’re also misinterpreting ‘some HDR proponents’. They don’t say you can’t capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a single raw file. You can also capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a siggle jpeg file! After all Ken Rockwell likens people saving raw data to people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles ; )
For the one who concludes that the event takes place in Russia after reading the second volume of Anna Karenina, I can say no more... ''

Ah, yes, you certainly do not say HDR is useless or fraudulent, while tactfully diluting the subject and creating your lithurgy by mentioning ''Some HDR proponents'' and their 'self fulfilling prophecy'' and adding some images (which I really don't mind) but repeating the kind of numb feedback such as 'nice, so what?'
Well, if there's one thing I can't abide, it's sophism, especially in photography ; )

Last edited by bahadir; Feb 19, 2010 at 6:02 AM.
bahadir is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2010, 5:52 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
Haha, well done Dave! However, visual literacy is more related with the faculty of interpreting the visuals than simply being acquainted with the terms about them.
Btw, I hope you haven't envied my humble compliment to a fellow mate of ours who kindly allowed a feedback displaying their comprehension both of the the text and the related images in my post.
And below is your feedback displaying your perception of the whole text I wrote in my post and the images I attached to it:

''Hmm? Other than pointing out that I missed the fact that this thread is two years old (my bad) what's your point?
And a nice shot that you posted. So?''

Well, I had to write a further explanation starting with 'So,...'

''So, Chato, what you see there under the strong summer sun is marble, which derives from the verb marmairein (to sparkle, to shine). I’m not sure if you realised that the second picture in my post is a 100% crop from the whole picture… Anyway, there you can observe the subtle shading even on the surface directly exposed to sunlight preserving the amount of observable detail gradually going into the deep shadows even in the shadows of tiny plants and the column itself as if you’re really there. At the same time, coming back to the original picture you can stil see the bright sky not even a bit molten or blown. Having been to many ancient sites I guarantee you that such a sight, without sunglasses, dazzles your eyes (capable of handling twice more dynamic range than the dslr in a single shot)
Now at this point also please refer to the lines in my previous post regarding the role of shading in a three dimensional representation.
Btw, I have a catalogue of butterfly and duck shots which required no more than a single shot. So, I could provide ‘nicer’ photos for your liking, but I intended to keep to the subject.
I‘m afraid you’re also misinterpreting ‘some HDR proponents’. They don’t say you can’t capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a single raw file. You can also capture a ‘wide dynamic range’ from a siggle jpeg file! After all Ken Rockwell likens people saving raw data to people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles ; )
For the one who concludes that the event takes place in Russia after reading the second volume of Anna Karenina, I can say no more... ''

Ah, yes, you certainly do not say HDR is useless or fraudulent, while tactfully diluting the subject and creating your lithurgy by mentioning ''Some HDR proponents'' and their 'self fulfilling prophecy'' and adding some images (which I really don't mind) but repeating the kind of numb feedback such as 'nice, so what?'
Well, if there's one thing I can't abide, it's sophism, especially in photography ; )
You posted a nice shot. Nothing to write home about, but a nice shot. Now you tell me that the definition of photography is to be able to see detail at 100 percent - As if to say that the artistic merit, or lack of same, in an image is the amount of detail.

Could you have seen that detail with your eye? From a distance? Would the shot have been better (for everyone but an archeologist writing their next tome on the Athenian Tribute lists)?

You are aware that tone mapping is Nothing New. That Ansel Adams used it long, long ago?

1. What is the effect of this intellectual gibberish on new-comers to photography?

2. Should new comers devote their efforts of HDR before they learn how to take wide range shots?

3. Does eliminating what a person on the scene would see, actually mean that it's a better photograph?

I asked these questions, you didn't answer...

Now in fact the eye Doesn't have twice the range of a dSLR. I've always wondered who started this myth. It seems that in todays world its been accepted to the point where no one even questions it. The eye adjusts ITS range an an extremely rapid manner, but it's actual range is only a few stops greater than a camera. Walk into sunlight from a dark room. Walk into a dark room from sunlight. Look at a tire under a car in shadow...

I do not know the degree of shadow in your image. You seem to imply that you could instantly see BOTH the highlights and the detail of the shadow while you were standing there? Is this true? Certainly it would not take long for your eye to adjust to the scene - But that's not it's range...

Quote:
Well, if there's one thing I can't abide, it's sophism, especially in photography ;
You really ought to look deeply into a mirror, preferably in a dark room...

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Feb 19, 2010 at 5:55 PM. Reason: spelling
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 20, 2010, 5:34 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Dave, free association often occurs in little children or insane adults, while following a definite subject. I’m not sure whichever comes first in your case. The use of free association as a healing method is another matter of course!
You’d better find yourself a correspondent ignorant enough to claim artistic merit=detail. But even with him/her be careful in case they are as dilutive about the subject as yourself. I neither introduced a definition of photography nor did I go into matters of what alone makes it ‘artistic’! In fact, a very good image which is perfect in technical aspect doesn’t have to be artistic, as in the case of a documentary photograph (doesn’t mean documentary photography is inartistic!), or a photojournalist may open an exhibition with his/her photographs, which doesn’t have to be artistic, yet can create great sensation.
You seem to be jumping from one branch to another trying to find sth. agreeable. Now, you picked the word ‘detail’ and jumped on it whether it is shadow ‘detail’ regarding the gradual shading ending in three dimensional look, or ‘detail’ as the tiny leaves of the foliage.
You’re also complaining about some unanswered questions about newcomers to photography, which you did not ask but had nothing to do with the subject even if you had. But no problem! Sooner or later they (the new comers) will wonder the reason why they couldn’t capture a dramatic alpine scene as it appeared to them. Perhaps someone would tell them that they were standing on the wrong hill(!) like the advice of turning your back to sun (instead of using the fill flash) when shooting people, resulting with a sour expressions on their faces. One should definitely know the limits of certain medium or method so as to find a way to exceed them, which is how it worked through the history of art as well as in the history of an individual. In fact, every art has its problematic which requires dealing with. You said tone mapping is nothing new and Ansel Adams used it long long ago. Actually Gustave Le Gray introduced the use of multiple exposures (one for the sky, one for the sea) even in 1850’s to deal with the dynamic range issue.
Now, so as to gain the best from your hdr effort you’ll need to know how to work raw files and know about the matters of exposure, since the destiny of the whole process relies in the success of the first image in terms of exposure, as I emphasized in my text from which you gathered nothing.
You write:‘’Now in fact the eye doesn’t have twice the range of a dSLR. I've always wondered who started this myth. It seems that in todays world its been accepted to the point where no one even questions it.’’
Rather than dealing with myths and speculations I’m now turning my face to the actual sight from my balcony and see a lumious sea under the voluminous clouds against a bright sky and the orange orchards through which grassy paths go into at the same time, which is real. Should I pick my camera to attain my actual impression, I know, I’ll need (well calculated) multiple exposures.

As for your justification ‘’the eye adjusts its range in an extremely rapid manner, but its actual range is only a few stops greater than a camera. Walk into sunlight from a dark room. Walk into a dark room from sunlight. Look at a tire under a car in shadow…’’

May half truth not fail us! You don’t shoot a different scene with the same exposure settings on your camera, do you? Similarly, our eyes adjust to a new scene. But, the question is what happens next when you press the shutter release…I can surely see both the highlights and the shadow as seen in the image I posted and have experienced it hundreds of times...
Keep it up my daily spam!

Last edited by bahadir; Feb 20, 2010 at 5:45 PM.
bahadir is offline  
Old Feb 20, 2010, 7:52 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
Dave, free association often occurs in little children or insane adults, while following a definite subject. I’m not sure whichever comes first in your case. The use of free association as a healing method is another matter of course!

May half truth not fail us! You don’t shoot a different scene with the same exposure settings on your camera, do you? Similarly, our eyes adjust to a new scene. But, the question is what happens next when you press the shutter release…I can surely see both the highlights and the shadow as seen in the image I posted and have experienced it hundreds of times...
Keep it up my daily spam!
Little kids enjoy calling people names. Little kids shoot off their mouths without knowing the facts.

You exemplify both. Innitiating name calling in lieu of argument.

Supposedly the human eye see's 20 f stops. Such is what I read on HDR sites...

F-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html


Of course the human eye can see both shadows and light - But not at the same time - Which is why so many HDR shots look phoney.

Your posted shot does NOT look phoney. And it's technically quite good. It's also a boring shot which would look better if it had some shadows. You think you're going to win any contests in either photography or logic?

But when faced with difficulty, you DO throw insults around with class and style. Even dealing with a shot of a Black Bird on a green background, sitting on a near white branch, All perfectly exposed, and telling me that the picture stinks. And then demanding that I notice the detail of a 100 percent crop - This WAS important to you - Until of course I posted a 100 percent crop of a normal shot, which has MORE detail - Then like everything else in your argument - It don't count.

You sir, have mastered, if not photography - You have dusted me in hypocrisy.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 20, 2010, 9:52 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Ive been watching this antagonistic banter going on and wonder why? Using HDR software is a tool in the box of the photographer to use at will or not if they so choose. The arguments against it is like someone complaining about the new fangled tool called a hammer when a rock will do the same thing. But taking it to a new level and attacking the OP is unecessary and pissing me off as well as others Im sure. If you dont like HDR, fine dont use it. Stick with your out of focus, blurry B&W shots of weird looking street people in your neighborhood and leave the HDR community to their devices. Photomatix or Dynamic HDR is capable of improving every image that is put through it when controlled by capable hands. Now how about sticking to the photos and stop the personality attacks.
Bynx is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 12:20 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Ive been watching this antagonistic banter going on and wonder why? Using HDR software is a tool in the box of the photographer to use at will or not if they so choose. The arguments against it is like someone complaining about the new fangled tool called a hammer when a rock will do the same thing. But taking it to a new level and attacking the OP is unecessary and pissing me off as well as others Im sure. If you dont like HDR, fine dont use it. Stick with your out of focus, blurry B&W shots of weird looking street people in your neighborhood and leave the HDR community to their devices. Photomatix or Dynamic HDR is capable of improving every image that is put through it when controlled by capable hands. Now how about sticking to the photos and stop the personality attacks.
I am a strong debater. But I do not cast personal insults. Personal insults, if you followed this thread, were innitiated by Bahadir, and now you.

Both of you should be ashamed of such behavior.

As for HDR as a tool, I do believe I have over and over again stated that it's a valuble tool, like unsharp mask, or the present generation of noise removal software.

Quote:
Photomatix or Dynamic HDR is capable of improving every image that is put through it when controlled by capable hands.
That's a pretty silly statement and false on it's face.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 4:43 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

’But when faced with difficulty, you DO throw insults around with class and style. Even dealing with a shot of a Black Bird on a green background, sitting on a near white branch, All perfectly exposed, and telling me that the picture stinks.’’

My only difficulty so far has been your illiteracy both textually and visually, Dave!

And after reading your reply, I withdraw ‘the child’ option (which you owned up yourself) in my conclusion about your case of free association, leaving the more serious option for you ; )
So I told you that the picture stinks? Now, I think you should have immediately proved your claim!

Upon reading a whole text and the embedded images you’re such a great(!!) mind as to respond: ‘’Hmm? Other than pointing out that I missed the fact that this thread is two years old (my bad) what's your point? And a nice shot that you posted. So?’’

Well, I, innocently, kept on explaining the image and the crop starting with So….

Again you showed your intellect: ‘’I did read that it was a 100 percent crop. Is that supposed to actually mean something?’’

Then I realized you were feeling airy while bothering people with your random assumptions, pretending not to understand them while repeating the same feeble reply ‘so what?’, attaching pointless images of 100% and 200% images, and thus trying to set them on mistake tactfully knowing that sanity will ultimately find itself in a desperate situation while trying to help insanity.

Surprisingly I also found out that it was only when you feel ‘hurt’ when you started to read your correspondent with a little care and felt the necessity to write accordingly!!
So, other than calling you ‘spam’ which I admit was mistake, what you call insulting were all sincerely intended, then turned into genuine insults with your imitative effort!

You’re calling yourself strong debater? Yes, but as much as someone anouncing himself merciful or very clever!! in which case the claim should be mutiplied by (-1) in terms of logic…I’d say, strong or rather persistent like some bacterea due to simplicity!

Anyway, my threat turned into a fruitless ‘me-you’ discussion at which point I’m not expecting any more from you. Funny, I’d been to the forums only a few times for the past five months due to occupation and hoped it would be merry return!

Last edited by bahadir; Feb 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM.
bahadir is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 5:36 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
’But when faced with difficulty, you DO throw insults around with class and style. Even dealing with a shot of a Black Bird on a green background, sitting on a near white branch, All perfectly exposed, and telling me that the picture stinks.’’

My only difficulty so far has been your illiteracy both textually and visually, Dave!

And after reading your reply, I withdraw ‘the child’ option (which you owned up yourself) in my conclusion about your case of free association, leaving the more serious option for you ; )
So I told you that the picture stinks? Now, I think you should have immediately proved your claim!

Upon reading a whole text and the embedded images you’re such a great(!!) mind as to respond: ‘’Hmm? Other than pointing out that I missed the fact that this thread is two years old (my bad) what's your point? And a nice shot that you posted. So?’’

Well, I, innocently, kept on explaining the image and the crop starting with So….

Again you showed your intellect: ‘’I did read that it was a 100 percent crop. Is that supposed to actually mean something?’’

Then I realized you were feeling airy while bothering people with your random assumptions, pretending not to understand them while repeating the same feeble reply ‘so what?’, attaching pointless images of 100% and 200% images, and thus trying to set them on mistake tactfully knowing that sanity will ultimately find itself in a desperate situation while trying to help insanity.

Surprisingly I also found out that it was only when you feel ‘hurt’ when you started to read your correspondent with a little care and felt the necessity to write accordingly!!
So, other than calling you ‘spam’ which I admit was mistake, what you call insulting were all sincerely intended, then turned into genuine insults with your imitative effort!

You’re calling yourself strong debater? Yes, but as much as someone anouncing himself merciful or very clever!! in which case the claim should be mutiplied by (-1) in terms of logic…I’d say, strong or rather persistent like some bacterea due to simplicity!

Anyway, my threat turned into a fruitless ‘me-you’ discussion at which point I’m not expecting any more from you. Funny, I’d been to the forums only a few times for the past five months due to occupation and hoped it would be merry return!
39

42

44

I did not respond in kind for quite a while - But your personal attacks on me are of course over the top in a discussion forum.

Everything you say, you defacto retract. You insult me, you call my pictures garbage. You tell us that the advantage of HDR is detail, and then say that detail doesn't matter.

Dynamic range matters, unless of course I post an image with wide range, in which case it doesn't matter.

You innitiate personal insults on this thread and then claim that I innitiated such insults.

This could of been an interesting discussion, instead you choose to be a hypocrite and, as you put it, a sophist. Visual literacy? Spare me more of your hypocrisy.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Feb 21, 2010, 6:39 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

I could do this in a private message but I will say it in the open as I would prefer to do anyway. Dear Bahadir, I hope you will not be avoiding this forum because of the stupid actions of one pissant. Your input here has been enjoyable and informative for me and others as well. And I hope it continues.
Bynx is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 PM.